Search: section 68

2 results for “section 68”+ Section 269Tclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur34 Delhi24 Mumbai20 Pune17 Ahmedabad13 Hyderabad12 Indore12 Nagpur12 Kolkata10 Bangalore9 Visakhapatnam9 Surat7 Lucknow5 Rajkot4 Chennai3 Chandigarh3 Cuttack2 Cochin2 Amritsar1 SC1 Jabalpur1 Telangana1 Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 269S8 Section 271D4 Section 1322 Penalty2 Addition to Income2 Search & Seizure2

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

269T read with section 271E could be imposed and the penalty was cancelled. In the case of OMEC Engineers Vs. CIT (294 ITR 599), the assessee was a firm carrying on contract business. The assessee received Rs.20,000/- or more in cash from 11 persons between. February 14, 1993, and November 10, 1993, amounting to Rs.5 lakhs. The return

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 206/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack